Cysx

He's definitely not my favorite, but I will say, I love his work on the enemies artworks.

At first I thought the same, but the problem with this theory is that if the screenshot from that Nohr chapter isn't actually from the Nohr campaign, but instead one of the first six chapters, it kind of falls apart. Now that does look unlikely considering the number of units you have and the few clues that point to a fairly large map, but then again, the dancer seems to be in her normal outfit instead of the one that is generally thought to be tied to Nohr(that could very well be for a different reason though), and Felicia(if that really is her, although I'm fairly sure that's the case as well) is featured on the Hoshido cover of the game, so being able to use her in the Nohr campaign would be a bit surprising. As for that cavalier, despite being from Nohr, he may actually always switch sides at the beginning of the game and be completely absent from Nohr's campaign. So I don't know, I still feel like we can't be sure with just that, though I'd love to be proven wrong on this one. Edit: In any case, this has made me very interested in that cavalier guy, whom has been featured nowhere, and yet seems to defect from Nohr fairly early in the game(considering Kazahana and that thief's stats in that screenshot)for some reason. If he actually did that just to follow Kamui, he must be a pretty important character, like one of his best friends or something.

But... this face though.

If he's male, maybe he's just an abnormally purely hearted guy... that's what's stopping men from riding a pegasus right? Or just, you know... it's a different world, with different rules. So maybe pegasi aren't so picky in this one. Pegasus brothers, incoming

Every Fire Emblem that got released outside of Japan did, as far as I know. So that's six of them including Awakening.

I don't think she'll be playable, and I sure hope that's how it goes. Getting her as a unit once was a nice surprise, but I don't want that to become a staple. The less I see her name, as well as Marth's and Tiki's mentioned in the FE games to come, the better.

Actually, that really does seem to be the case... Wyverns, black magic, horseback units and bow-using thieves seem tied to Nohr, while Hoshido has myrmidons, pegasus knights, and ninjas. Doesn't mean that any one campaign will keep any of that from you, though. In fact I'm lying, that sounds very likely to me, just not all of it.

He sounds like Inigo. We can also see him fight in the japanese nintendo direct, after the trailer. Considering his figure and his voice in this as well... I'm pretty sure that's a man.

Well, Who knows. I don't see a throwing star being classified as a sword, and knives had many 1-2 options, so...

The text box of the supporting units both read as "attack!", so maybe, just maybe, you have to choose between attack/guard/something else this time around? Or something completely different. But that text box intrigues me.

Nohr I guess, but I get the feeling that the only acceptable choice will be "both". Plus the trailer really makes it seem like some classes will be faction exclusive, and if that's correct, I can see ninjas being Hoshido only coming from a mile away. I'm definitely not missing out on ninjas. Unless, you know, they're just the new assassins, but I hope there's more to them than that.

And yet, by no action of yours, the steak tastes worse. You no longer feel at home in that little restaurant. People around you blame you for being selfish and stubborn when you state that you liked it better before. Even though you've done no wrong, even though you're just being sincere. You start to despise these people. One night you take a knife and... ... hm, so yeah. Also the inclusion of casual makes classic into a self-inflicted challenge, so one could say it does negatively affect classic in a way. Doesn't matter much but eh, that's something. Still, I think that casual should stay, or be replaced by something better that achieves the same result, even though I'm not too fond of it to say the least. I also like the idea of giving an incentive to play classic over casual that people who have never played classic can relate to. Nothing too big though. A Farina would be fine.

Well, this doesn't seem like a bad idea, but I hardly see the difference of taking individuality of characters through their personnal weapons rather than through their personnal skills. And you guys were completely against the latter when we discussed skills management some time ago. As a matter of fact, so did I... Ditching the skill/2 crit formula seems too harsh, and would hardly even help skill units; it would rather effectively make crits accessible to some classes only, and to player units only, as well. Which... is kinda boring. And effectively makes critical avoidance completely useless.

That's interesting indeed. I can't see any major drawback with this idea, if it's balanced right(or rather, if everything is balanced right around it). That could buff quite a few unit types in need besides SMs, like light magic users, archers and assassins. And it'd buff luck, too. Seems pretty good to me. My problem here is that you are asking for more balance(which is good), but at the detriment of variety(which is not). Once again, your example's a bit off, because iirc, the choice in WoW wasn't like "hit chance or damage" to begin with. It was more like "hit chance vs crit chance vs casting/attack speed". Because no equipment had all three at once, but every single of them had damage. Then again, that's when I left the game years ago, so maybe they changed it by now. But at the time hit chance was introduced, that's how it worked.

And you'd most certainly be correct. However. Is where it's at. This is no argument; the fact is not everyone has the internet, so you shouldn't NEED it to get this kind of information if you want to know about it. Okay, that was a bit harsh. The emphasis really wasn't meant to be on "any decent player". Sorry if you felt insulted. I'll rephrase then. In my opinion(which can perfectly be wrong), most of the decent players end up refering to growth for many things, from the very moment they know about them. Because this is very important information, and one of the core mechanics of these games. That doesn't mean you'll know them perfectly, and that doesn't mean you'll make every single one of your choices(like will I ditch that unit even tough I like it) based on them alone either.

Not everyone has access to the internet. And this is information relevant enough to how the game works so that you should be able to see it in-game without having to resort to hacking. Should I even mention that any decent FE player knows about growths and plays largely according to them?

Ninjas!! Or not.

Ooookay... So what I've seen there is someone giving a fairly bad idea, and people disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing for about one full page of comments, leading to an endless debate. To be fair, seeing growth wouldn't bother most of us in games we've already completed, but I still agree that you shouldn't force this information on people who don't care about it. Moreover, I am part of those who know what growth rates are, and definitely wouldn't want/be able to ignore them if they were shown to me from the very beginning. This would completely change my way of playing, with the game basically telling me "use this unit, don't use that one". While this might happen in some cases(on a normal playtrough, lords are units you'll mostly be using, while jeigans are not, ie. there also are classes plain better than others), you'd end up knowing from the moment you get them if units are worth it or not, and basically we would all react the same way; bad unit we ditch, good unit we use. The very first playthrough of a Fire Emblem game shouldn't look like that. Everyone using the very same units and not even bothering training the others because they already know how they will turn out is completely uninteresting. It's information given to the player that he MUST not have. The very fact that you'd ask for it makes me think turncounts/tier lists/whatever slowly made you guys forget that numbers aren't everything in this series. And no need to tell me that the game already gives you hints on who's gonna be good or bad, because making something bad worst just because, after all,"it's already bad" is no argument whatsoever. However, there are definitely people who would want to see them in game, and telling them "go browse the internet", don't take it personnaly, is completely stupid. This is the kind of thing that you should be able to see in game if you want to. Plus, some people don't have the internet at all. A game shouldn't be incomplete if you don't hack it. So, very simply, add an option to display them, or not. BUT only after clearing the game at least once. Because the first time through a game should be about discovering it, being surprised, being disappointed. No offense, but if you no longer think that's any fun, you might have lost something. So, yes, an option on second playthrough onward. Seems about the best way to please everyone, to me. Or to displease everyone, probably. Meh. [/opinions]

As I said earlier, luck would probably be fixed if it gave a really low amount of crit. It would be quite handy, while staying logical(if you can evade, hit, and lower your odds of taking a critical hit in the face because of luck, I really don't see how landing a critical hit thanks to luck wouldn't fit). Critical avoidance seems very important to me, in a game where dead characters won't ever come back. Because if arena abusing taught me something, it's that a 1%(well, even lower thanks to double rng, but still)chance of losing a character is already pretty huge. That would be 38 level-ups, actually:3 By the way, I'd really like to see trial maps coming back in FE13. I liked those.

Well, hero weapons are imbalanced anyway, I can't argue that. But they have rather low might, so they rely on the user's strength(or battle skills) quite a lot more than any other good weapon. Basically, you'd be attacking twice before the ennemy can do anything at double strength, which means if your unit as enough strength, you could kill about anyone if you attack first, without ever getting hit. And I don't even want to imagine putting vantage in the mix... This is quite a lot better than hitting four times for lower overall damage(most of the time) and taking a counter. That would effectively make it into the absolute best 1-range weapon, while before it was not. Okay, sorry for bringing that up again. Just seemed that everyone thought it was perfectly balanced, which I believe is wrong. Not really asking anyone to balance it, just pointing out the problems. Well, rings would be cool too. I merely mentionned having a very small and restrictive way of taking one's innate, because otherwise you're basically losing those of every character you're not using. ...But I guess that would completely destroy the possibility of giving a mediocre unit a good innate skill to balance it... You'd just take his/her innate as soon as you can and ditch him/her. Probably would be fine with balanced and appropriate innate skills for everyone, plus rings, then.

And with x2 strength, using hero weapons would be... Hm? No one is listening? Well, okay then. I'm not against keeping innate skills locked on their users, but then we need everyone to have at least one innate, and preferably something they can use. Like someone said, cancel on Leonardo was kinda meh, and some characters didn't even have innate skills. Well in fact, I did like how skills were handled trough FE10 more than in FE9. Even if for the sake of balance, something FE9-like is a better choice, I think giving like a handfull of special scrolls allowing you to take an innate skill from someone, to put onto someone else, once per scroll AND per character, would be pretty neat and avoid actually going backward with the skill system.

Well in fact, after thinking a little about it, not only is +4 skill far too low, considering it happens even more often trough the game than having +4 speed, but giving anyone the ability to deal so much damage without getting counter attacked in the process(opposite of double attacking)on a 100% basis, even by sacrificing the ability to double, seems blatantly overpowered. And about ennemies defenses, the only ennemies were doubling would have the edge(but needs to take a counter to deal full damage)is those with high hp but next to no def; these ennemies are pretty rare, and quite a joke anyway. Against any ennemy hard to defeat(like with tons of defense), double strength would clearly own. While different, FE4 and FE5's critical hit system really showed this. And I don't know if you thought about mages too(like 2x magic at +4 skill), but siege tomes. So I still think it's not a bad idea, but it clearly needs to be something that activates less easily, and deals less additionnal damage. Or it needs to be dancer exclusive.

Decent idea. Beware of huge crits though, not to mention ennemies have generally low skill so you can evade their attacks. But this isn't a bad idea by any means, maybe +4 skill is just a little low. That's true, but I don't think you should invert luck and speed when it comes to avoidance. There clearly are things that aren't logical in FE, but it's no reason to modify those which are if you can do otherwise. And in my view, luck should simply raise critical rate as well, maybe at about +1 crit every three or four luck points. I don't even know why it doesn't work that way right now, tbh.

Must admit that I didn't think about Crimea. Their presence would make things a bit overwhelming... But as they aren't there in our actual 3-E, and Ike tells Elincia to stay out of the battle so she can act as a mediator, it would probably be best not to let them in.

This system seems interesting, but it mustn't be forgotten that one of the main strenghts of Fire Emblem is how simple a system it has, yet how hard the game is in spite of this. This is the complete opposite of most S-rpgs I've played; pretty complicated(yet I might add exploitable)systems but way too easy games in the end. Felt like they needed to make them pretty simple for the player not to be overwhelmed. Which would probably happen if they didn't. Long story short, I prefer the opposite. And most good games work like this: easy to play, but challenging. Seriously, has anyone here ever tried to calculate how much damage your character'll do before attacking, in Disgaea? This is pointlessly hard. And you'll probably end up with the wrong number anyway. So in the end, you stop trying to know things like this. You simply attack and hope the opponent will die. And while I enjoyed Disgaea, this is not how a good S-rpg should be. That's how a good RPG should be. And while Berwick saga may be different, what you describe feels like it'd need way too much planning. Is it a hard game?